|
“The Media, Our Democracy, and
Peace: A Statement of Cause”
from the Media Affinity Group of Peace Network
of the Ozarks
“The freedom to say and think what we
believe...That’s our birthright.”
This quote comes from the First
Amendment of the Constitution, and is the basis for what we claim as our
right to free speech and free media. Right?
Wrong. This is a quote from a slick
advertising campaign Philip Morris paid the U.S. government $600,000
for--the right to feature the Bill of Rights in their efforts to polish
their nicotine-stained image!
This travesty demonstrates one of the
most important issues facing our democracy: It appears to be for sale.
For our airwaves to be as prescribed by our Constitution--free and owned
by the public--they must not be sold to corporations making the highest
bid. Today, Americans seem to be surrounded by an abundance of news
sources, yet the range of viewpoints expressed is woefully inadequate.
Media mergers have resulted in six international corporations owning not
just most of the major media outlets worldwide, but also brands of
consumer products, internet companies and technology, music and
publishing companies, theme parks--even privatized water industries!
With the bottom line being profit, and with the range(extent) of
products being sold, it’s evident that our air waves are not for
public use, but private gain.
Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel, the
corporation that now owns over 1,200 radio stations across the U.S.,
thanks to the deregulation of radio ownership in the 1996
Telecommunications Act, succinctly states this fact: “If anyone
said we were in the radio business, it wouldn’t be someone from our
company. We’re not in the business of providing news and information.
We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music . We’re
simply in the business of selling our customers products.”
What effect does this use of the
airwaves to sell rather than inform have on our democracy? Peter
Phillips, director of Project Censored--which monitors the
underreporting of important news stories, states unequivocally:
“Corporate media censorship is an
attack on democracy itself. It undermines the very fabric of our society
by creating a highly entertained, but poorly informed electorate. Given
that corporate media systematically censors important news stories it is
not hard to understand why over 50 million eligible voters do not bother
to vote.”
When the founding fathers established
our government, they recognized that a free press was critical to the
success of a democracy. They understood that an independent press was
mandatory, and must not be government controlled. The power of the press
must reside in the people. James Madison warned: “A popular
Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is
but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own
Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
In an effort to arm ourselves “with
the power knowledge gives,” members of Peace Network of the Ozarks are
studying issues relating to media ownership and governmental influence.
In this world where news channels sanitize wars so they won’t upset
their viewers/advertisers, and the Pentagon embeds reporters to get out
the approved message, we realize the principle of free speech is more
than an advertising gimmick--it’s the foundation of our democracy!
Media is no longer just a way to get
information about issues, it is an issue.
The Media Affinity group invites you to become a part of our discussions
and actions as we seek to educate ourselves and our community. Whether
you read articles and follow links we post here ,or become an
actively-involved member, your participation will strengthen the quest
for a fair, sustainable society where peace may flourish.
Links To Other
Sites About Media Reform
|
Only Dictators Ban Television
News
By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers
Sunday 30 November 2003
The raid by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi
officials on an Arab television network bureau in Baghdad and
the ban on its broadcasts hardly fits my idea of how to spread
democracy in the Middle East.
Isn't that the first thing dictators
do -- shut down broadcast outlets and newspapers? For those in
power, tolerating a free press is difficult, even in a
democracy. As a foreign occupier in Iraq, we are proving it is
intolerable.
The terrible irony here is that we
pride ourselves on offering a model to the rest of the world on
how to design -- and live by -- our constitutional freedoms.
Journalists around the globe have been taught to emulate our
approach to newsgathering, hopefully in an atmosphere free of
government restraints.
At the same time, we're snuffing out
news outlets we don't like.
On Monday, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi
government raided the Baghdad bureau of the Al-Arabiya TV
network. The network's crime was to broadcast an audiotape from
Saddam Hussein complaining about Iraqis who were cooperating
with the U.S. occupation force and calling for resistance. The
tape had been sent to Al-Arabiya's headquarters in Dubai, the
United Arab Emirates.
The network, which has interviewed
Secretary of State Colin Powell in the past, is one of the
largest TV outlets in the Arab world.
Any tape portraying Saddam's views
on life fits the definition of news, if for no other reason than
it is evidence that he is still alive and able to secretly
communicate from wherever he was hiding.
Al-Arabiya and its competitor, the
al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, have a wide following throughout
the Middle East. Al-Jazeera caused Washington much discomfort in
the lead-up to the war by broadcasting statements from Saddam.
The White House strongly offered "advice" to U.S. TV
outlets to shun those tapes but the American networks generally
ignored the unhelpful hints.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
has accused both Arab stations of being hostile by covering news
of the guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces.
Al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau was hit
by a U.S. missile on April 8, killing a reporter-cameraman. The
network also has complained of an attack on its marked vehicle
April 7.
On Nov. 13, 2001, during the U.S.
war on Afghanistan a U.S. missile went "awry,"
according to the Pentagon, and destroyed the al-Jazeera bureau
in Kabul.
The New York-based Committee to
Protect Journalists has condemned the move against Al-Arabiya,
noting that "statements from Saddam Hussein and the former
Iraqi regime are inherently newsworthy and news organizations
have a right to cover them."
Rumsfeld grouses that the two
stations were violently against the American coalition. He hopes
to counter their influence when a U.S.-controlled TV satellite
channel begins broadcasts next month.
Then will the Iraqis and the Arab
world be guaranteed the truth?
In a brilliant speech earlier this
month before the National Conference on Media Reform,
broadcaster and former newspaper editor Bill Moyers warned that
American media conglomerates may find common cause "with an
imperial state."
But Moyers said "the greatest
moments in the history of the press came not when journalists
made common cause with the state but when they stood fearlessly
independent of it."
Against that statement of values,
the recent performance by U.S. journalists does not measure
well.
White House and Pentagon reporters
initially pulled their punches in reporting on the Iraqi war.
Some media outlets admittedly did not want to rock the boat by
showing grisly photos or videotape that could be disturbing to
Americans.
As a result, many Americans tuned in
on foreign news channels to get the full picture of the war.
Even now, with the administration's
pro-war arguments reduced to a pile of confetti, many news
outlets have failed to demand accountability from the Bush
administration for what appears to be systematic dishonesty in
trying to justify the U.S. attack.
This failure and the U.S.-led
suppression of newsgathering in Iraq show that the historic
American model for a free and independent press needs courageous
bolstering.
|
